REVIEWER GUIDELINES

Download PDF


PAPERPLAZA

REVIEWING PAPERS: WHAT TO LOOK FOR AS A REVIEWER

  1. Regular Papers
  2. Overview/Position Papers
  3. Position Papers
  4. Tools Papers

PROFESSIONALISM

GUIDELINES ON USE OF GENERATIVE AI

OVERLAP WITH PUBLISHED WORK

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

CODE OCEAN

IEEE DATA PORT

REVIEWER DEADLINES

FINAL DECISIONS: AFTER THE MANUSCRIPT LEAVES YOUR HANDS




The IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems (OJ-CSYS) is a new publication of the IEEE Control Systems Society covering the theory, design, optimization, and applications of Dynamic Systems and Controls. The journal’s main mission is the promotion of open access to all control systems research and education publications, including software, and data by drawing on the knowledge and help of the expert technical community. To that end, Reviewers play an integral role in the success of the journal by evaluating in a timely manner both the quality of the technical contribution and the quality of the assigned papers.

Reviewers are picked for being leading researchers in the field, likely having authored relevant papers that have been previously presented in high-profile journals and conferences. In addition to this criteria, our goal is in selecting those for whom the paper is on a topic that they would really like to see or to say something about. Having Reviewers who are interested in going over the manuscript is likely to yield a positive experience for the Reviewer and a succinct yet sufficiently detailed evaluations and recommendations for the authors. Please further note Reviewers should not be at the same institution as the authors of the paper.


PAPERPLAZA

All aspects of the manuscript review process are handled through an online submission system called PaperPlaza. To act as a Reviewer, you will have to be set up with the system/create a PIN for yourself:

1. Visit css.paperplaza.net/conferences/scripts/start.pl
2. Select “PIN” at the top left-hand menu
3. Follow the instructions to “Register a new PIN”
4. Enter your relevant information, including updating the keyword database

*Please note that a new PIN does not need to be created if any personal information changes, such as affiliation. Instead, please modify your personal information using the last login. For those who have volunteered with the journal, please ensure that someone from the editorial board has added you to their own list of potential Reviewers through the system in addition to setting your PIN up. This means the Associate Editor will be able to find you through the system when he or she is ready to request a review. Upon selection, the request will be forwarded to the email listed on your PaperPlaza profile.


REVIEWING PAPERS: WHAT TO LOOK FOR AS A REVIEWER

In general, there are things that will be essential to the success of each manuscript. As in a literature review, the authors’ depth of knowledge and recognized expertise in the proposed topic, for example, as well as the importance and timeliness of topics, technical correctness clarity, citation of enough references, inclusion of enough examples, and the coverage of basic concepts are all things you will be looking for. Negative comments or opinions should always be discouraged.

In addition to these common factors of success for all manuscripts, certain focus should be given to a manuscript depending on its article type. There are three different article types for the OJ-CSYS, each with a different aim to keep in mind as you do your evaluation.


1. Regular Papers

Regular papers are standard journal articles presenting significant research on analysis relevant for Dynamic Systems and Controls, and/or applications.

Some questions to ask are:

Regarding applications, contributions can range from experimental results using a new method for a given application, to new concepts for real-time control architectures, to novel modeling techniques, or to innovative sensors. Descriptions of new application domains where control-engineering methods have not been applied previously are also acceptable contributions.

Technical correctness of the paper results, of course, is mandatory but does not necessarily ensure the paper acceptance. Being able to solve a problem with correct mathematics does not necessarily imply that the problem is worth solving.

2. Overview/Position Papers

Overview/Position papers present a summary of a research area in the field of Dynamic Systems and Controls. They are mostly survey papers, but with tutorial-like elements.

Some questions to ask are:

3. Position Papers

These are short papers presenting future challenges and new developments in Dynamic Systems and Controls. There are two types of papers: Perspective or Technical.

Perspective position papers provide a personal viewpoint on problems related to an emerging research area in Dynamic Systems and Controls. Perspective papers can either:

(i) Outline key challenges, provide guidelines, and future agendas for the field, and identify collaboration opportunities for researchers in Dynamic Systems and Controls with other areas;

(ii) Contextualize findings, adding a new dimension to the field, formulate questions that are related to the ethical, philosophical or legal dimension of a control systems technology, its public’s perception/acceptance, broad policy adoption, and social implications.

For Perspective papers, some questions to ask are:

These papers can include some speculative and forward-looking content to stimulate new approaches and debate.

Alternatively, Technical position papers identify technical bottlenecks in current research, its open problems, and new techniques to solve them.

For Technical papers, some questions to ask are:

The style of these papers can be more technical, but still accessible to the Dynamic Systems and Controls community.

4. Tools Papers

Under this category of papers, authors can submit i.) tutorial-like papers describing new testbeds, software, data, and benchmark tests with appropriate links to these tools, and ii.) report on the performance of control algorithms, as compared to others on benchmarking tests, sophisticated simulation (high-fidelity, with hardware in the loop) or other case studies with practical relevance.

For the first set of papers, some questions to ask are:

For the second set of papers, some questions to ask are:


Assuming the manuscript has passed the test related to each article type, the Reviewer can go on to evaluate whether the presentation is clear, concise, and complete. In other words, is the paper readable? Are all concepts clearly explained? What sections were hard to follow? Is all notation and terminology clearly defined before it is used? Are there places where more detailed explanations are needed? Are there parts of the paper that can be made more concise or technical arguments that can be shortened? Is the importance of the problem sufficiently stressed? Is the paper written in proper English?

The key to a good evaluation of the presentation is to be as specific as possible. Your review will guide the authors in making revisions to the paper. You need not re-write the paper for the authors, but you should tell them as precisely as possible where the revisions need to be made and why.


PROFESSIONALISM

The role of reviewers is to both evaluate the content of the submitted papers and to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Suggestions to improve the paper or to correct possible flaws should be presented in a clear and polite manner, and always be constructive in their criticism. This is necessary to convey a respectful tone, carry out a constructive discussion, and avoid misinterpretations that can lead to unnecessary, negative emotional responses.

When making recommendations, you should provide enough detail – examples, evidence of your argument and/or specific citations – for the author to understand why you are making the recommendation. Even if you believe a manuscript to be seriously flawed, try to provide suggestions for how it might be improved. Finally, Reviewer comments and conclusions should be objective and free from personal or professional biases.


GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF GENERATIVE AI

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools include Large Language Models (LLMs) such as Open AI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard, and Anthropic’s Claude. Reviewers may use GenAI to improve the exposition of their reviews, but they are ultimately responsible for their final review and any statements it contains.

To maintain the confidentiality of the review process, because GenAI tools might store and use input submitted to augment the data sets they use for training purposes, reviewers and editors shall not upload into a GenAI tool any part of a paper they are evaluating. For the same reason, reviewers and editors shall not upload into a GenAI tool any part of their review/report that contains identifying information about the paper or the authors.

For the most up-to-date information on policies surrounding the use of GenAI, please refer to the IEEE CSS guidelines here.


OVERLAP WITH PUBLISHED WORK

Submission of a manuscript signifies that it has neither been copyrighted nor published, submitted, or accepted for publication elsewhere. IEEE policy requires that authors, when using their own previously published or submitted material as a basis for a new submission, must disclose such use in their cover message and “cite the previous work(s) and very clearly indicate how the new submission differs from the previously published work(s).” [IEEE Publications Operations Manual, Section 8.2.4F.] The submission of the previously published material as Supplementary Material is also required.

If a submitted manuscript has been published or has been accepted for publication in the Proceedings of an IEEE conference, it may be considered for publication if evidence is provided that it adds value relative to its conference version (for example, it contains detailed proofs omitted from the conference version, new material, and/or additional numerical results). This ensures consistency with the policy stated in the previous paragraph.

If, at its time of submission, a manuscript has also been submitted for publication in the Proceedings of an IEEE conference, it will be considered for publication in the journal with the understanding that, should it be found publishable in both venues, evidence will be provided that its final version adds value relative to its conference version, as explained in the previous paragraph. Please refer to the CSS Policy for Overlap for further information.

In either of the above cases, the conference version must be uploaded as supplementary material.


SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

OJ-CSYS accepts computer code associated with the final accepted manuscript. As Reviewer, you are asked to review this supplementary material, which will be submitted through PaperPlaza or a repository such as Code Ocean and IEEE DataPort, in which case a visit to the respective website will be necessary.

Instructions are included below to access the two main repositories, and in addition, authors will be asked to include a SUMMARY file describing the overall components and intent of the code, as well as a README file describing the steps required to reproduce simulated results and/or to build/execute the provided code.


CODE OCEAN

OJ-CSYS accepts computer code associated with an article (e.g., implementing algorithms), which can be submitted with the final accepted manuscript, and users in IEEEXplore will be able to discover and access the link to run the algorithm in Code Ocean.

As reviewers, you will have to review this supplementary material. Please go through the following steps to run and review the code:

  1. Visit repository through CodeOcean.com/explore or IEEE Xplore Widget
  2. Sign Up with Code Ocean for free
  3. Search for capsule you want to review (by keyword, research field, title, author, DOI)
  4. Click “Reproducible Run” on top, right-hand corner.

IEEE DATA PORT

Datasets can similarly be submitted with the manuscript. The authors will be asked to upload the data either into PaperPlaza along with their submission or into their own repositories (Dropbox, Google Drive, Github, or another repository of your choice) during the review process. IEEE Data Port will then be used once the article has passed the review process and has been chosen for publication.


REVIEWER DEADLINES

The OJ-CSYS aims at ensuring rapid dissemination of the most recent results in the broad field of Systems and Control. The OJ-CSYS has a target of 20 weeks from submission to final decision. To provide a service with such high standards, the Editorial Board and the Reviewers involved in the review process must comply with tight and demanding constraints. As a Reviewer, you will have to observe the following strict deadlines:


FINAL DECISIONS: AFTER THE MANUSCRIPT LEAVES YOUR HANDS

The manuscript review process is handled by an Associate Editor, who prepares a report and makes a recommendation on the basis of peer reviews. The final decision on publication, whether accepting or modifying this recommendation, is taken by the Senior Editor handling the paper and by the Editor-in-Chief. The review process is single-anonymous: Reviewers are never known to the Authors. Also, the names of the Associate Editors handling the review processes are not disclosed to the Authors, who will only interact with the Senior Editors assigned to the papers.



Your contribution to the IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems is an invaluable resource for the journal’s mission of the promotion of open access to all control systems research and education publications, including software and data. Your feedback is therefore highly valued, and you can feel free to contact the Editorial Board with any questions or suggestions, especially concerning the review procedures. You may contact the Associate Editor who sent you the manuscript, the Editor in Chief or the Editorial Assistant.

The IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems’ main mission is the promotion of open access to all control systems research and education publications, including software, and data.

The journal is fully open and compliant with funder mandates, including Plan S.

News